Guest MattP Posted 18 July 2013 Posted 18 July 2013 Iceland has only 2500 registered female players in their country and they get through to the QF Fcuking hell Oh dear. They would do well not to try to emulate the mens England team. I'd still rather watch the girlies I think, even if you can be assured the squad is mostly lesbian.
Guest MattP Posted 18 July 2013 Posted 18 July 2013 quality over quantity. Uruguay are a testament to that.
Corky Posted 18 July 2013 Posted 18 July 2013 Blimey, what a depressing summer for the male youngsters and now the women. Three points from nine games combined, and no victories.
Pride_Of_The_Midlands Posted 18 July 2013 Posted 18 July 2013 No, it's not. Don't the Americans love women's soccer? Like they know all the players from the team - Hope Solo and that other one Alex Morgan. In England nobody knows any of the women's players.
Toffee_Fox Posted 18 July 2013 Posted 18 July 2013 Probably because men's football isn't as superior over there to the women's game as it is here, they have more people who watch baseball, basketball, american football and such rather than 'soccer'
shen Posted 18 July 2013 Posted 18 July 2013 Don't the Americans love women's soccer? Like they know all the players from the team - Hope Solo and that other one Alex Morgan. In England nobody knows any of the women's players. What's your point?
Jordan Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Now, I haven't watched a second of the Women's Euros, but I've watched a game or two of good women's soccer in my time, so I'm gonna bullshit it. Here goes: Probably because men's football isn't as superior over there to the women's game as it is here, they have more people who watch baseball, basketball, american football and such rather than 'soccer' It's not just a matter of relative popularity of a sport--it's a matter of opportunity. Even before the 1990s women's soccer boom in the U.S., soccer was a popular sport for girls. Title IX was a landmark law for women's sports, as it mandated that no person be subject to discimination or unequal access of opportunity at any institution that receives any sort of federal funding. The most notable effects of this law were felt in public schools and university, where suddenly schools had to provide equal number of sports for males and females. Past female sports heroes in the United States were track stars, tennis players, figure skaters and gymnasts. The legacy of Title IX was perhaps best shown in the 1999 Women's World Cup, where perhaps for the first time, girls were inspired by athletes like Mia Hamm--athletes that played a team sport. And even with professional women's soccer's spotty history here, the college soccer apparatus in the U.S. is well-developed. An 18-year-old woman that wants to use soccer to help make something of her life would do much better to go to North Carolina or Stanford than play on an average FA WPL squad. Even if professional soccer doesn't pan out for that player, at least she'll have gotten a free ride to a good university. Professional women's soccer in the U.S. has had a spotty history. People will watch the USWNT, but people decidedly do not watch women's soccer the same level as any of the other sports you mentioned unless a major tournament is going on, and we only have two of those every four years. Speaking of equal opportunity and a strong youth set up... Iceland has only 2500 registered female players in their country and they get through to the QF Iceland may not have a lot of players, but in many regards, it's women's soccer system is far more sophisticated than England's. I learned a little bit about this when I was in Iceland two months ago, but I went on a week-long bender there, so take this with a grain of salt: Iceland is perhaps even more hyper-egalitarian than its Scandinavian cousins. Not only that, but it's a football mad country--the population of Iceland is about the same as that within the unitary authority of Leicester and has something like 70 clubs in its men's league pyramid and 18 in its women's leagues (IMO there are less women's teams by then because all the girls that aren't good have probably decided to go to university or be a be some sort of avant-garde artist). Iceland has had a top-level women's league for about 40 years, and Icelanders have invited/traveled to play against/with foreign teams/players/coaches for a long time, at all levels. The youth soccer system is sophisticated there, and the clubs run their own academies with teams for kids as young as 5. There are football fields everywhere. And when they can't grow grass, kids can play on artificial turf. And when there's three hours of sunlight and it's snowing, and the kids aren't playing handball, they play indoor football. Part of the reason why Iceland goes all-out for women's football is because the country has a sort of Napoleonic complex when it comes to international competition. It's considered a big deal when Iceland outperforms bigger nations, so shit like World's Strongest Man, chess, WikiLeaks, and trying to have the most cutting-edge rock bands are all big deals in Iceland. Because women's football is a more level playing field, naturally Iceland was a little bit ahead of the curve, so now they've just picked up the ball and run with it. Oh, and maybe this has something to do with how Iceland's women have fared in football vs. the English : Don't the Americans love women's soccer? Like they know all the players from the team - Hope Solo and that other one Alex Morgan. In England nobody knows any of the women's players. Americans that follow soccer know Hope Solo and Alex Morgan because they're good players. Everyone else knows Hope Solo and Alex Morgan because they're hot.
shen Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Top marks for that reply, Jordan! I fear that it's in vain though, because the people who've made the comments that border on sexist and ridicule the women's game will likely not care. This was just another opportunity to have a cheap shot at the female version of the game. I won't pretend I don't ridicule women's football at times. The already mentioned performances of the English and Spanish goalies made me laugh a little bit. But truth be told, the women's game has come on leaps and bounds since I watched my first game at the end of the 90s. I was genuinely impressed with the French women today as they tore apart England. The speed and execution of their counter attacks would've had most BSP teams reeling. But once again, I imagine no-one is actually interested in hearing someone defend the women's game...
RedHux Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 The France team of last night, albeit missing some of its regular starters, tore England a new one and I can't help but think it looked like a modern team vs one from the eighties. tactically speaking anyway. They were light years ahead in every area. We chose to play half fit old guard instead of playing the in form players. Almost identical to the men's team now I think about it.
Guest MattP Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I was genuinely impressed with the French women today as they tore apart England. The speed and execution of their counter attacks would've had most BSP teams reeling.. Do you actually believe that really?
Rincewind Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 England were supposed to be a reasonable team but never performed. At least the managers are in place longer. Whether that's a good thing or not I don't know but they get a chance to develop and bond. The French manager reads stories doesn't he to the team? Think it was after the Russia game one of the pundits said a England player should have gone down to gain a penalty and the reply was We don't do that, we play fair.' Women's football has come a long way but there's still a way to go in gamesmanship. They still play to enjoy the game as a priority not to win at any cost.
Super_horns Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 gamesmanship. They still play to enjoy the game as a priority not to win at any cost. Don't people want some aspects of that taken out of the Men's game though? Mind you al teams do it so your probably right. Maybe too honest.
linemakers Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 England ladies team the same as the men, the old players get picked because of who they are not what they can do. The managers seem scared to pick younger inform players and stick to the old names. That might be due to the stick they get from the press before and after the match if it goes wrong. I don't think we are allowed to build a team for the future as we have to win every match ( even pointless games) or the press have a field day.
Rincewind Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Didn't Leicester used to have a decent women's team? The thing is the men's is so dominant and watched by mainly males. Many cannot accept that women are capable of playing or are too focused on the sex appeal. Could be said it's the same for some women that watch the men's game. They get the shorts but not the offside rule.
shen Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 Do you actually believe that really? Meh, I don't watch BSP, it was more a figure of speech. I was impressed with their two-pass counter attacks. A couple of the French attackers had speed, serious speed. I can only imagine there are some lumbering centerbacks in the BSP that genuinely wouldn't be able to keep pace with them.
MC Prussian Posted 20 July 2013 Posted 20 July 2013 At the moment, women's football is a bit of a good laugh, really. I appreciate the tournaments, but due to the lack of physique and skill, it'll always go down as a rather boring affair. It's just that after being used to regular football for so long, the gap is simply too big. I wonder how long it'll take for a female goalkeeper to be put into a squad full of men - see Manon Rhéaume's attempt at that in hockey about twenty years ago. I can't watch women's football - there's something quite unattractive about it.
Corky Posted 23 July 2013 Posted 23 July 2013 Why are the Scandinavians so good? Maybe they don't see themselves as a top team before they play? Maybe they don't have a handbook of excuses and platitudes available for when they fail, like the English do, and believe that winning is giving it a best shot?
Wymsey Posted 23 July 2013 Posted 23 July 2013 Why are the Scandinavians so good? No pressure on them to surpass this stage (ie. 'Minnows')?
shen Posted 23 July 2013 Posted 23 July 2013 Danes into the semis without having won a single match... I seriously would like to see a historic tournament win by a team that failed to win a single match throughout. Penalties FTW! On why Scandinavians are so good, I guess it could have something to do with the gender equality culture that seems far more advanced in the Nordic countries than elsewhere..? Wymeswold may have a point too, at least regarding Denmark. They've performed in two games, against the highly favoured Swedes and French, and failed against the mediocre Italians and Finns. The Swedes would've been hugely disappointed had they not reached the semis though. Besides Germany and possibly France, I don't think they see anyone as a threat to the title.
shen Posted 26 July 2013 Posted 26 July 2013 Denmark so nearly made it through to the final without winning a single game. Norway got through on penalties. Disappointing...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.